Friday, January 06, 2012

WAIT -- WE'RE ACTUALLY DEBATING WHETHER WHAT GINGRICH SAID IS RACIST?

At times, in trying to judge apparent racial slurs on a case-by-case basis, I've cut people slack whom most other people wouldn't -- but really, how can there possibly be any debate about the intent of this, which is so overt it doesn't even deserve to be described as a dog whistle?

Newt Gingrich's comments about African-Americans and food stamps, made at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire yesterday, have made the expected media rounds -- from Slate to The Daily Beast to The Associated Press to MSNBC -- but the interpretation has changed somewhat along the way.

A reporter on the trail notes that Gingrich frequently says in his stump speeches that he would urge people to demand paychecks instead of food stamps -- a talking point that it is not usually met with great alarm by the media. He also frequently says that he would go to the NAACP convention if it invited him. On Thursday morning, the two points came together when he said he would go to the NAACP convention and explain "why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

... For those in the mood to parse, the full transcript of Gingrich's remarks:

The fact is if I become your nominee we will make the key test very simple -- food stamps versus paychecks. Obama is the best food stamp president in American history. More people are on food stamps today because of Obama's policies than ever in history. I would like to be the best paycheck president in American history.

Now there's no neighborhood I know of in America where if you went around and asked people, would you rather your children had food stamps or paychecks, you wouldn't end up with a majority saying they'd rather have a paycheck.

And so I'm prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps. And I'll go to them and explain a brand new Social Security opportunity for young people, which would be particularly good for African-American males because they are the group that gets the smallest return on social security because they have the shortest life span.

For crissake -- did he or did he not say in so many words that the African-American community is "satisfied with food stamps"? And does he even acknowledge the existence of rural white poverty, or white poverty in any location? And why is Obama "the best food stamp president" and not, say, "the best unemployment insurance president"? Isn't it because Gingrich knows that the best way to reach the reptile portions of certain white racist brains is to mention a government program associated (in those reptile brains) with the alleged sloth and indolence of non-whites, rather than with the misfortune of (good white) folks who would be happy to work if they could find employment?

Oh, and here's a follow-up from the Gingrich camp:

I know that the left has a passion for defending it's right to be the only moral arbiter in America. Therefore, just as happened with Moynihan, if you in fact talk openly and honestly about the failure of liberal institutions and the way they hurt the poor, there becomes a sudden frenzy of a herd of people running screaming, 'racism, racism.' It is a fact that liberal institutions in inner cities have failed the poor. It's a fact that bad schools trap poor children. it's a fact that bad public safety policies lead to the collapse of cities like Detroit....

Five sentences, and in three of them poor is equated to non-white (assuming you read "inner cities" as "non-white urban neighborhoods" and "Detroit" as "scary hellscape full of Negroes," which Gingrich assumes you do).

Gingrich is running as if it's still the time of Willie Horton and the Jesse Helms "Hands" ad. I don't think it still is that time even in the GOP. Except at a relatively low political level, you can still be racist, but you can't seem that racist. You have to give yourself a bit more deniability than this.

10 comments:

That was my reaction, too - it's so blatantly racist it's not even a dog whistle. Plenty of less prominent conservatives (bloggers, etc.) have said virtually identical things, but it's sorta great to have Gingrich to fly that bigot flag so proudly.

Two key components to Gingrich's speech. No neighborhood he knows of would prefer food stamps. But he would tell African-Americans that they should demand paychecks. There's no good way to put these two thoughts together, especially when talking exclusively to white crowds.

With the lowest per-capita minority population in the country, Oregon has the highest food stamp receipt. And the highest per capita homelessness. And more people labeled "poor". And the lowest return on the monies we invest in the country - while shitholes like Mississippi gets back a buck thirty back for every buck they put in, we get about eighty cents for every buck we put in.

People wonder why there is a growing movement in the Pacific Northwest to hoist a collective middle finder to everything east of The Rocky Mountains and south of the Alvord Desert and wish yawl a fine fare-thee-well.

It'll be interesting to see what depths Romney will plumb during the general elections. My guess is he'll do what McCain did -- pick a VP candidate who is more comfortable trafficking in winky dog-whistles.

I predict that the use of racist smears will be inversely proportional to the state of the economy. If the economy is generally perceived to be on a strong upswing, Romney might have to resurrect George Wallace.

in 2012, there will be no repercussions for blatant racism within the republican party. i see their thought process as something like 'the president is black, so we're not getting the black vote anyway. f%#k it.' republican candidates are only out for the cracker vote. it's incredibly short sighted, but republican 'thought' only extends as far ahead as the next election. and in their favor, people are stupid and forgetful, you think anyone will remember this more than a year from now? also, too, this is noot's last rodeo, he'll go out guns a'blazin. i think you are giving today's gop too much credit, steve.

in 2012, there will be no repercussions for blatant racism within the republican party. i see their thought process as something like 'the president is black, so we're not getting the black vote anyway. f%#k it.' republican candidates are only out for the cracker vote.

No, that's not a big enough vote -- they're also out for the white swing vote, which includes people who really aren't racist and people who think they aren't. You have to keep racism coded to get those voters.

It'll be interesting to see what depths Romney will plumb during the general elections. My guess is he'll do what McCain did -- pick a VP candidate who is more comfortable trafficking in winky dog-whistles.

But this is an old Republican/conservative truism, isn't it? That, even though there are more whites on food stamps than blacks, the whites are somehow deserving of it and using the program as a legitimate stop-gap on their way to full employment, but the blacks just get lazy and stay on food stamps as a way of life.

maybe it's because im cranky this morning, having to go to work for the next eleven hours directly after this, but i gotta disagree with you again, steve. swing voters don't give a crap about this. swing voters are paying no attention whatsoever right now, they are comically uninformed, and will vote in november depending on their personal circumstances. if their lives are getting better, they'll vote for obama, if not, they'll vote for the republican.

say noot gets the nod. obama can't play footage of this on the campaign, because he'll be playing the race card. this can only help noot. crackers will see that he's a real murkin; the swing voters don't care about this, don't pay attention to politics, are uninformed, and will vote depending on their personal circumstances. liberals weren't voting for him anyway. pointing out the racism can only hurt the pointer-outers.

as long as republicans don't actually say the word, they can walk it up all the way with not-at-all veiled racism, just like this, and will pay no price. the media won't step in. 'republicans say obama likes fried chicken and watermelon, the white house disagrees.' then the president won't get to enjoy delicious fried chicken, not in public at least, and the panty-sniffers will dig through the garbage to see if there are any chicken bones.